process were noted. The purpose of the observation was to get some data about the effect of the actions that were implemented in teaching and learning
of writing. The observation technique also provided field notes about the whole condition during the teaching and learning process.
2. Interview
This technique was used to get the data related to the teacher’s and students’ behaviour while and after the actions implemented. It also covered
problems found in the teaching and learning process. The researcher interviewed both teachers and students to get the data related to their
perspectives before, during, and after implementing the actions and the effect of the teaching media used.
3. Writing pre – test and post – test
Writing pre – test and post – test was also instruments used to get information about students’ writing skills. Writing pre – test was a test which
was conducted in the beginning of the treatment. It gave information about the students’ writing ability before the actions. Moreover, post – test was to
measure the students’ writing skills after the actions. Both tests measured how the actions improved the students’ writing skills.
The following table shows the scoring rubrics of writing according to Jacobs et al in Weigle 2002: 116.
Table 3: Scoring rubrics of writing modified from Jacobs et al in Weigle 2002: 116
Aspects Level
Score Criteria
Content Excellent to
very good 4
Knowledgeable, substantive, through development of thesis,
relevant to assigned topic
Good to average
3 Some knowledge of subject,
adequate range, limited development of thesis, mostly
relevant to topic but lacks detail
Fair to poor 2
Limited knowledge of the subject, little substance, inadequate
development of topic
Very poor 1
Does not show knowledge of subject, non- substantive, not
enough to evaluate
Organization Excellent to very good
4 Fluent expression, ideas clearly
stated supported, well organized, logical sequencing, cohesive
Good to average
3 Loosely organized, limited support,
logical but incomplete sequencing Fair to poor
2 Non- fluent, ideas confused or
disconnected, lacks logical development and sequencing
Very poor 1
Does not communicate, no organization, not enough to
evaluate
Vocabulary Excellent to
very good 4
Sophisticated range, effective word usage, word from mastery
Good to average
3 Adequate range, occasional errors
of word usage but meaning not obscured
Fair to poor 2
Limited range, frequent errors of word usage, meaning confused
